HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B -Dave Hansen Property / 17001 Fish Point Road
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21, 1998
lOB
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX
UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE
ROOF TOP SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND BUILT IN
IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD.
Historv:
On July 31, 1997, DOH Enterprises applied for a building permit to
construct an office/warehouse building in the Waterfront Passage
Business Park. Based on the plans submitted by the applicant, and
approved by the staff, no variances were required for this building.
Section 5-5-10 of the City Code (Landscape Ordinance) states "All
areas to be lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigation
system...Permanent underground irrigation is not requiredfor
existing, new or re-established natural or native plant communities".
The City received a letter on August 13, 1997, stating the sub-
contractor for this project would be submitting an irrigation plan, as
required by the ordinance. In an effort to expedite the issuance ofthe
building permit, the staff accepted this letter as the contractor's
awareness and intention to comply with the ordinance for issuance of a
building permit.
Section 5-5-15 of the City Code (Business Park Ordinance) states "All
utility equipment, such as heating and ventilating equipment, meters
and other devices shall be completely screened from eye level view of
adjacent residential properties and streets....If on the roof, the
equipment shall be screened with a parapet or screen wall of materials
compatible with the principle structure. Vertical or horizontal wood
slats, fencing or similar materials are not an acceptable screening
material." Roof-top screening is a specific requirement in the
Business Park zoning district, which, when uniformly adhered to, will
create an aesthetically pleasing office/industrial park. Attached is a
specification of the proposed and approved roof-top screening which
was submitted by the applicant and included as part ofthe approved
building permit.
1:\98fi1es\98var\98-093\98-093cc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1:\98files\98var\98-093\98-093 cc.doc
In March, 1998, Mr. Hansen requested a permanent certificate of
occupancy for the building. The staff refused to issue the permanent
Certificate of Occupancy because the irrigatio!1 system and the rooftop
screening had not been installed as required by the ordinance and the
approved plans. On August 13, 1998, Mr. Hansen submitted an
application for a variance to these requirements. He argues that the
ordinance with respect to roof-top screening is being liberalized and he
should be treated under the criteria ofthe new ordinance and not the
criteria of the existing one.
On August 24, 1998, the Planning Commission held a hearing to
consider a variance to waive the requirements of roof top screening
and irrigation requirements for Dave Hansen. Upon reviewing the four
hardship criteria, the Planning Commission concurred with staffs
recommendation that there are no hardships with respect to the
property or unique circumstances of the property that warrant granting
of the variances. The Planning Commission thus denied the variance
requests. On August 28, 1998, Mr. Hansen submitted a letter
requesting an appeal of this decision to the City Council.
Current Conditions:
The building is constructed and various tenants occupy more then 50%
of the space. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued
pending completion of building, engineering, and planning items
including landscaping and roof-top screening. Rather than complete
the project as approved in order to receive a permanent Certificate of
Occupancy, the developer is requesting the variances to obtain
Planning Department approval of the permanent Certificate of
Occupancy.
The Issues:
The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning
Commission's decision that the proposed development does not meet
the four hardship criteria.
While the proposed zoning ordinance has amendments to address roof-
top screening and built-in irrigation, the granting of variances based on
future ordinance changes is not justifiable under the hardship criteria
as stated in the City Code.
On July 29, 1998, the City Manager offered Mr. Hansen a
compromise. It consisted of a cash escrow, based on bids for the roof-
top screening and irrigation, to be given to the city to insure ordinance
compliance would be met upon adoption of the new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hansen would have to complete the work within 90 days of
adoption of the new ordinance and would have to reimburse the city
for costs associated with drafting the necessary documents for this
2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1 :\98files\98var\98-093\98-093cc.doc
agreement. Mr. Hansen expressed to the Planning Commission that he
was not interested in the offer based on the conditions.
In his appeal letter, Mr. Hansen offers a compromise to install the
irrigation if a variance to roof-top screening is granted. On September
4, 1998, he submitted a draft irrigation plan for review. The City
currently has a $17,500 Letter of Credit on file which expires on
February 13, 1999. The City can draw on the LOC for completion of
the irrigation requirement.
Conclusion:
The petitioner argues that the ordinances are urmecessary and a waste
of money. While the proposed ordinance addresses Mr. Hansen's
concerns, we cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a structure
that does not meet current ordinances on the basis it will meet future
ordinances. Mr. Hansen was aware of the ordinance requirements in
effect at the time the building permit was issued, and submitted plans
complying with those requirements. He chose not to complete the
required work. Mr. Hansen has also been offered an alternative by the
City Manager which he has chosen not to accept at this time.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the
requested variances on the basis the request does not meet all four of
the hardship criteria and the variances are unjustified with respect to he
property. The granting of variances based on speculation of the
proposed zoning ordinance does not comply with the current hardship
criteria as set forth in City Code.
There is no fiscal impact if the variance is approved or denied. The
building is constructed and partially occupied by tenants.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variances requested by Dave Hansen.
2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staff to prepare a resolution
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the
requested variances.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX
upholding a decision 0 the Planning Commission denying the
variance req to WIve the requirements for roof-top screening and
b~-in I,d ape i gation.
,
\
B les,
3
RESOLUTION 98-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE en:i COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
T.t1E PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE HtE ROOF
TOP SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND TUE BUILT-IN IRRIGATION SYSTEM
REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN ON T.t1E PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001
FISH POINT ROAD
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by
David Hansen. of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a
variance to waive the roof top screening requirements and the built-in
irrigation system requirements for the property legally described in attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards
for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code,
and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the
decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision
denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should
be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY T.t1E CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. Dave Hansen has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive
the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment
for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P
(Business Park) District at the 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described on attached
Exhibit A.
2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#98-093 and held hearings thereon, and denied the request on August 24, 1998.
3. David Hansen appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code.
4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on September 21, 1998.
1:\98files\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc,doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
5. The Prior Lake City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the hardship
criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property.
Any hardship, was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design. There
are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. The
applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the
building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top
screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub-
contractor submit an irrigation plan.
7. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to
literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property
without the variances.
8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of
roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance.
9. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby:
I. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to waive the roof top
screening requirements and the built-in irrigation system requirements for David Hansen on
the property located at 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described in Exhibit A, which exhibit
is incorporated into this resolution.
Passed and adopted this 21 st day of September, 1998.
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
I :\98files\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc.doc
Page 2
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I :\98files\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc.doc
Page 3
. ;,
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description:
That part of Lot 1, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County,
Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 degrees
10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the west line of said Lot 1, Block 2, a
distance of 147.00 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the west, having a
radius of 526.00 feet, a central angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length
of26.08 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East (not tangent to said
curve) a distance 195.73 feet; thence South 85 degrees 59 minutes 04 seconds East a
distance of 217.67 feet; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a distance
of 184.60 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot
2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West along said
easterly extension and the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distance of 41 0.52 feet to
the point of beginning.
1 :\98fi1es\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc ,doc
Page 4
D.O. Hansen
8140 Plying Cloud Drive
E~~~. ~~a,e, MN 55344
tZ~d~ /~7P
Mr. Don Rye
City Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372-1712
Dear Mr. Rye:
I am writing this note to appeal the decision ofthe Planning Comlnission on Monday, August
24, 1998 to the Prior Lake City Council regarding my application pertaining to variances for
Roof Top Utility Equipment Screening (Sec 5-5-15) and a Built In Irrigation System.
The variance for RoofTop Utility Equipment Screening on my building is sensible and logical.
There simply is no reason for the screening! There is absolutely no material etc. that could be
used that would look better than what is there now! By insisting that I screen these units, the
City is taking the position that this ordinance does not need "attention." It certainly does!
The variance request to eliminate an Irrigation System is my "part" to stop needless waste of
pure water. Also the system defmitely is not needed. There is no proof that it is.
However, I offer this solution. Grant me my variance on the Roof Top Utility Equipment
Screening which is logical and sensible on my building and I will put in an Irrigation System
even though it wastes our precious water as the City of Prior Lake desires!
The irrigation plan must be reasonable. There are "islands" on the north side of the building
that cannot be served by an irrigation system. However, there are sill cocks to provide watering
of these areas.
cc:
Mr. Prank Boyles, City Manager
Honorable Major Wes Mader
City Council
\~) rn@mil \'!J ~~ 1
i,1 ,/1
Ii: I U 2819!ll :it
. I'
, ,
,
.,
July 29, 1998
Mr. David O. Hansen
8140 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SUBJECT: Variances
Dear Mr. Hansen:
Mayor Mader has referred your July 24 letter to me. I understand you have suggested that
you would be willing to place an escrow deposit with the City to guarantee the necessary
rooftop screening and in-ground sprinkler requirements following adoption ofthe new
zoning ordinance.
The City would consider your proposal under the following conditions:
. The escrow amount is based upon bids provided by you for rooftop screening and in
ground landscape sprinkling as required under the present ordinance to serve the roof
and landscape areas shown on your approved plans. Bids to be approved by the City
Engineer.
. You will provide the City with a certified check in the amount of 125% of the bid
amount as the escrow deposit.
. Any work required by the new City ordinance would have to be completed within 90
days of the effective date of the new ordinance.
. The escrow will be released upon approval of the required work by the City. The
escrow agreement will provide that after 90 days, if you have failed to install the
required equipment the City will install the rooftop screening and in-ground
sprinkler. You will provide the City with a non-revocable right of entry to install the
improvements, if necessary.
. You will reimburse the City for all legal fees incurred in connection with preparation
of the necessary documents to secure this transaction.
16200 E~AlR~c:S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Please contact me to advise whether you agree with these conditions so that we can
prepare a written document memorializing this matter.
cc: Don Rye
Suesan Lea Pace
City Council
DHANVARDOC
Aug-13-97 10:30A ConS'-~uct;on 70, Inc_ 1 "-1.2 781-0123 P_Ol
. INTENT TO SUBMIT IRRIGATIO~A\o)
<<-~,...... 'l'?:>j IO~",'1
ONS'TRUC'TlO.... .......,.
GENERALCONTAACTOR
> 1)
6)
--
August 13, 1997
City of Prior Lake
Attn: Don Rye, Jenni Tovar, Paul Baumgartner
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Prior Lake Industrial Park
17001 Fish Point Road
Prior Lake, MN
Dear Don, Jenni and Paul:
This is in response to the August 1, 1997 letter from Jenni Tovar,
,General Plan Revisions:
The irrigation system is to be designed by a subcontractor. We will submit an
irrigation plan for your records at a later date, .
2)
3)
4)
Trash enclosure will have a roof. Architect is dropping off a plan this morning.
Lighting plan and fixture information has been submitted to you.
We added a fire hydrant as requested and is shown on the plans that were
resubmitted last week.
5)
Revised landscape plan has been submitted to you last week.
Dave Hansen's bank is faxing over a Letter of Credit for 125% of the landscape/
irrigation costs.
BuildinQ Permit Requirements'
1) Certificate of Survey -- we have submitted to you a signed Civil Engineered
Survey/Site Plan showing building setbacks, parking areas, 'and elevations, We
have hired a professional surveyor to layout the building and site, We will fax you
a letter from Paramount Engineering & Design as requested by Don Rye
2) Tenants will be required to submit for individual sign permits,
CONSTRUCTION 70 INCORPORATED. 2808 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH' MINNEAPOLlS, MINNESOTA 55418
TELEPHONE (612) 781-0100
C'MSWORI<S\JA'f\22.JICIT'1'.REV.WPS FAX (612) 781-0123
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PAR1'IAL ROOF- TOP SCREENING PLAN
. -::J
1'vfEa'W.I1~~ ROOF a.Rf> PEr AIL
I 1/2" = r-o"
)
~
0p
I.
"
~
1
"'-,of"
'n'-(/'
'ld-(/'
~=)
1 fUl'E
6Aete
)
::)-
if'REr'lN/stED M:T1t..
EM:RfeNc.y lM:Rft..Ow\
5ClF'Pl:R
R TU 6t:REENJNE;
'!-0
~-:_-
~
1-
~
~ RTU - UP t:lRP
PEr...... ,of/~
PRV@ ~ r-:=-
I
(- RJU
--+
--.----------
'--- -'-0
1-
~
~
b
I
..
....
{~T.
PRvO os"v (3'\..
~-y
JNE;\
~ '~11
.
,I
,I
,
~
~f'REr'1N1€t1:D M:TIt.. ~y "
fNERftDN 5ClF'Pl:R
(0
--------
'~-- -'--0
1-
""- --@
1-
~
flII1..RE RTl). 6t:REEN1N6
(4) THIS Rar HV. 'l>".
; ..-~ --'@
~
j,
61tt.E ROO!" t'WIE ENTRY
'"
I
1.l
<~r,
::r /1:/1 ~
l 0 &Att.,e
. --- ---cD
ROa" J:RAiN WI 4'-(/' x-
4'-(/, ~ 9Jo,f>
1-
f'REr'1N16t6> M:T It.. EM:RfeN.:;Y ~
fNERftDN 5ClF'Pl:R
(-~\
, #
12-31-1997 3:d0PM
..... .r~
,c.,.. .rr' ;Jr.
,,.,,0 ((,\./;- \
,~. \co /
J"L...t'- 11'-;)
0>: ".\~\
1""
o
~ll~~-~ I
:"
: I
/,
I
\
."-';""--';;' ....~:..~~.:...:.~.'.
R~~_~:~O~IgER~miNG SPEC'S
P.2
I
\
2'-0"
\1
I
Existing parapet
I
, I
light guage metal frame brace to
mechanical unit
matching colored break metal screen
top of screen level with
top OT unit.
I
\
I
treated 2x6 pads
rooT
/
--
- .:--
ClIO
#,,1. "
- .......... /
veriFy
Screens to be installed on visible sides only of rooftop units
when viewed from the streen in front of the building.
Mechanical Screen Detail
1/2" = 1'-0"
CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
o ISSUED FOR APPROVALSIPRICING ONLY
. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
Prior Lake Industrial
Prior Lake, Minnesota
dale issued:
ref. sheet number:
Brisley Architecture Company
WiHiam D, 3risley. AlA
3220 Irving Avenue South
Minneaoplis, Minnesota 55408
voice: 612.824,8730 fax: 612.822.7537
pager: 612318.1336
-'-
,.
....
...
4>
>
- ....,,-
12/23/97
bulletin no:
B
1 of 1 sheets
"-
>
Cramer:
. Agreed the hardship criteria have been met.
. Impressed that with the number of variances before the Commission, especially with
smaller lake lots they usually come before the Commission with numerous variances.
Attempts have been made to keep it to one variance.
. Agreed with V onhof s amendment.
;':':':':':':':':'..
Stamson: ,,::::~j::::::::::::,:,:,:,:.:::::tt::
..::;:;:::::::.,
. Concurred ,,::::~:::::;::t
,,::: .~~J1~~;~~~:;:t~~j~~~~jj~~~~t::::..
: ~::~::~~~: oC:::~o~:~ been met. .. .t::liillllt::: '':::It:::iiiiiiii:::::t~::::,,
. The DNR opposed this request based on lot ownership,.J141~yJ:this is noFiqjj9.int ,',
ownership. .,::::~f:lf:::::::f:::::::'" ,::th:,:'.',. "::::~:~:'::~::I::iliii:::::r~r::'
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAME~:::~grTINli~SOLUTION":98-
22PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO LOT AREA\Bli,.Ai,YKU:Y'bD WITH THE
CONDITION THAT NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES W:;;::::BE GRMlbU.
. ';::~:j :~:~:~: ~:1::::..
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CAlHUED,. "::::q:::iiillii::::i}:~w:::f::'
B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen :~l: roof-top sereening
of utility equipment and a va~!,~~ce to wai~t::.n.le:'1rrigat~9p:::fequirement for new
construction. ,,::::~~:::::::::::::::::::t:::ti:ii:i::i:iiiiil..:,liiiii::::':::::i1iii"ii:t: ,:::::::.,
Planner Jenni Tovar Bn~~ented the g!Jlming Rep~tt::;ated August 24, 1998, on file in the
office of the City P!~-'::::tt:::" .,::::!::t:::llilll,~i;:::::::i::::::i:~~:!:!:!:!::::~:~:?:\i::ii:::::::::fr:::"
Staff concluded the varian:c;~::f'~ests ar~"~;:~r:~~bstantiated with hardships pertaining to
::;G~:~ance willi llie onlinance.
df~:~ii:l~en, builder foJile office warehouse on 17001 Fish Point Road, said time was
of the ~~~I,~.. His co~ly started the work program and many things were presented
that he wJ'~:~::letall;x~::t&iliar with at the beginning. Mr. Hansen said he did not submit
a screening prMltifitJj:::the intent in mind not to put them in. His company took a lesser
role in constructliif'in the property. He disagrees with the Planning Commissioner's
findings regardfhg screening and feels the ordinances are outdated. Today rooftop units
are clean and technologically advanced. He knows of no other fencing that would
enhance the property. Neighboring businesses have smaller units like his on the building
and look fine. Hansen said there is nothing less intrusive than what he has now. He has a
large investment in Prior Lake and wants the building to look attractive. Mr. Hansen
stated he will comply with the new ordinance.
With regard to the underground sprinklers: Hansen feels the underground sprinklers are
not effective. On one side we are trying to be resource smart then on the other side we
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm082498.doc
3
;.......-~._- ---
....
~
are wasting water. Hansen asked to strike the inground water system because he feels it
is a total waste.
Kuykendall asked if there were other landscape alternatives. Hansen said there was not.
He feels he has the best and needs his Certificate of Occupancy.
Tovar explained requiring a Letter of Credit for two years versus the irriga~iQ.!l:,,~ystem.
She also read the Business Park requirements regarding screening. ..:::,~{:fr,;:,::::::::::::::::tt'
Gary Horkey, owner of neighboring Keyland Property, said he cOl)}:pif!:III~ttg all the
~~:;;g and inground watering system and did not rec~tio~
The public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. .,::,:",:,::" :,:,:,::,:,:.,
&~. >>~~ M~
..::;:;:;:;:f ":::;:;:;::" .:;=;=;;::.,
"::;:;:::::;:::;:;:;::" ....... ','
Comments from the Commissioners: .:;/:~;::,:':':'trrt:::,:.. ,::,/,iil:iiii:::::::::t:::}:,.
~U~:~~~~ts raised by the applicant b~ ofme~
. Supports staff recommendations basedi:p.:it:':til~rf!f:@,,:pf the info:;;.::non presented. What
is reasonable? When there are architectlW~1 co~i~it~>>gp'~ lliaF'are not tightly defined,
it leaves a lot in the eyes of the designed#hetb.!For':rigti:mj~rmeet that definition.
. We should look at this OHfm~%tagain. -=:;::iiiiii:::!f:::" ,:,~::ff:"
. Regarding the water: ,,:,:jtMidaia!:~le imposeq:::~o no matter who owns the property it is
maintained. Ther~:"f:~Hio assurcuji~ if the prop~U$::is sold the next owner will comply.
: i~~:::~~:~aJ!~~l':gglii.i~:t~:~:~~~;:~;:t:~;::~~:~. City
Manager Boyles conta:a~A::Mr. Hansen"a:.'tew weeks ago with alternatives which Mr.
. ~~ii1~~~!'II~~d ~:~:::~:I~l"1\vith the City Manager's suggestions because the
~dI~g was very~wsive.H~:::also stated he told Jenni Tovar and Don Rye he
..,,::{I~y~d be happy to gli~:,:them i'letter indicating he would comply with the new
:~a:~7ance as is and feels he does not have all information
. Asked applidmi ifhe would be amicable to a condition on the variance such as
painting th~:::~quipment to match. Hansen responded he would do it immediately.
. Agreed with Kuykendall, could approve the variance with conditions to meet the
intent of the ordinance.
. Adding any additional rooftop screening will look worse than it already is.
. Shared the concern with the inground sprinkler. The propose of the ordinance is to
attract new business to the area.
. Will deny that part of the variance.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm082498.doc
4
Stamson:
· Agreed with arguments to some extent by the applicant. The rooftop units could be
painted and provide efficient screening.
· The applicant makes good arguments about the irrigation system, however what we
are working with and our legal definitions for granting a variance and the conditions
put forth just do not warrant a variance. Applicant should negotiate with the City.
The variance is not an appropriate vehicle. "i::t:i~::~::~;:;~;~:;:;;ilMt
: o~::~ not support granting a variance. A
· Agreed with Stamson on the rooftop screening. The Busines~!~~~k h~::!I~~r
standards than the rest of the City. It was intentional. ,,::::~~ttt::::::.:,::~tit "':::tiI!I!t:::"
· Applicant brings up good points. Sometimes in affect.ilWg:::~:th~t see ever;::til~idirtg,
obviously. Perhaps variance condition #4, does nQt;f6Iate,fu~ intent and spirit]l~r
may be met. Agreed with that point. ,,:::ltiiiiiiiiii:t:::., "::iiiiiii!!th.. '~:f:"
· Agreed with Chair Stamson that this is not the p;~p:~tt,~gll:i:~~~!~X''plicant is bringing
up valid points, this is not the proper vehicle. The staijHI9.~ are the standards we set
.
.
.....:.:.:.:.:.:-:....
.~::: i:~~~m ~ ~~~~~ ~~~!:~: ~ :~:~:!:!: ~: !:!:!::: ~::"
· Supports staff' s recqmmendatI~i:i~~d would;:p'~ny' the VarIances for the reasons stated.
Encouraged the app1,!:cant to resif1sider the striW*'tions by the City Manager.
Cramer: .:tiir:~:~:{!!ii~~111111111111111~it::::::::::t::::ii::!iii~~::::;:;iii!:::1i:i~i!i!t!!!!!!!!I!;;;:::;!!!!::i~/:::!i:ii!~::::"
It is apparent ,~.~/~.?~dition.':Wq~:!:g9t pass and will support the rest of the Commissioners in
denyin:~:@ij;'Jf:!ti~11 ::1t::: ..::::!~;;!!i~~l!IIIIIIII!!~iiiitJ;f:::.
MOTION BY VONHb$i!!!$ECO~rfBY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RI1;SWAUTION 98-21Pci!DENYING A VARIANCE TO W A1VE THE ROOF-TOP
S'cREDING OF UTlLITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO W A1VE THE
IRRIGATI0N REQumrSMENT FOR DA VB HANSEN.
Vote take~::::~i.~9!!:f~~:'by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson eXPlahf;::"the appeal process.
5. Old Business:
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\rnn082498.doc
5
"..t,